DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement provided filed on 12/13/2023 has been considered.
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed 12/13/2023. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1-17 are rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the quality of the scanning renders the drawings difficult to read. Particularly, the text on FIG. 3 through FIG. 8B is unclear.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohdan (US 2018/0121211 A1) in view of Cáceres “Reincarnating PCs with Portable SoulPads” [In IDS].
Regarding Claim 1, Bohdan discloses a system for a mobile computing device (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user device 101-1; par. 75, user device 101-1 is a mobile smartphone) and a second computing device (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user device 101-2 [see par. 38, device may be stationary device listed in par. 19]; Bohdan par. 75, OS runs on device 101-2) associated with a user (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user 100) to interwork (Bohdan FIG. 2A, device interoperability system working in conjunction with the user devices [also see par. 8 and 44]; and par. 75, example use when OS 214 runs on user device 101-2 which is connected to user device 101-1, the hardware components of user device 101-1 are used by the OS), wherein:
the mobile computing device comprises a device interoperability system (Bohdan FIG. 2D, user device 101-1 [i.e., the mobile computing device] contains integrated device interoperability system 200 [also see par. 11 and 71]) having a communications module (Bohdan FIG. 2B [depicting device interoperability system, see par. 45], communications module 213), wherein a first connection is established between the second computing device and the communications module (Bohdan par. 50, communications module 213 participates in the establishment of the one or more connections 201-1 to 201-N [i.e., connections from the device interoperability system 200 to computing devices [including second device 101-2]);
storage coupled to said communications module (Bohdan FIG. 2B and par. 52, storage 212 is coupled to communications module 213), wherein the storage stores
an operating system (Bohdan FIG. 2B and par. 52, operating system 214),
one or more programs (Bohdan FIG. 2B and par. 52, programs and data 216),
data associated with the user (Bohdan FIG. 2B and par. 52, programs and data 216; par. 52, data and programs are "user documents and data"),
further wherein the operating system is booted by the second computing device via the first connection (Bohdan par. 180, after establishing connection 201-2 [i.e., first connection], OS 214 is shut down on user device 101-1 [i.e., mobile device], then booted on user device 101-2 [i.e., second device]; also see par. 75, example use when OS 214 runs on user device 101-2 which is connected to user device 101-1),
the operating system runs on the stationary computing device (Bohdan par. 180, OS 214 is booted on device 101-2 [i.e., stationary device]), and
the operating system uses one or more processing capabilities of the second computing device for operation (Bohdan par. 53, OS 214 and installed applications are run on the user device which device interoperability system 200 is connected to, and uses the processing capabilities of this user device for its operation; and Bohdan par. 181, devices runs own instance of OS 214 in parallel with each other); and
one or more processors to support said device interoperability system (Bohdan par. 46, one or more processors 215 perform the functions of supporting the other elements of device interoperability system 200).
Bohdan does note that user device 101-1 may be a mobile device and user device 101-2 may be a stationary device (see par. 38, devices may be device types listed in par. 19, which include mobile and stationary devices), but does not explicitly teach that user device 101-2 is a stationary device operating with the mobile device.
In the analogous art of implementing a user profile across multiple devices, Cáceres teaches:
a mobile computing device (Cáceres pg. 1 col 2 par. under figure 1, SoulPad is a portable device carrying the software stack shown in Figure 1) that interfaces with a stationary computing device (Cáceres pg. 1 col 1 abstract, a computing device interfaces with SoulPad [also see pg. 2, col 1, par. 1-2, SoulPad interfaces with x86 based personal computers])
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohdan and Cáceres before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bohdan’s system of computing devices with Cáceres’s use of a mobile device and a stationary device, the motivation being to allow the user to resume sessions on desktop computers without needing to carry a large device or docking station to maintain their session data and preferences (Cáceres pg. 1, col 1, introduction section).
Regarding Claim 3, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan does not explicitly teach wherein the first connection is a USB connection, but generally discusses using a wired connection for connections between devices (Bohdan par. 57, at least one of the connections 201-1 to 201-N are direct wireless and at least one of the connections 201-1 to 201-N are direct wired). Additionally, Boden discusses how USB connections can be used for both wired and wireless connections (Bohdan par. 56-57, USB dongle or USB wired connection is used to connect device interoperability system 200 to user device 101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to use the USB to establish the wired or wireless connections between devices, such as the first connection, the motivation being to use a standard connection method that can be used in both wired and wireless connections.
Regarding Claim 4, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan further teaches wherein prior to the booting of the operating system, the mobile computing device is turned on, and one or more options are presented to the user to select a mode of operation (Bohdan par. 88, user device 101-1 is switched on [i.e., mobile computing device], and user device 101-1 presents the user with the option of setting up for interoperability system mode [i.e., mode of operation]).
Regarding Claim 5, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 4. Bohdan further teaches wherein the presenting of the one or more options comprises a timer-based process (Bohdan par. 89, user accepts the option of setting up for interoperability system mode within a predetermined time period [a timer would be needed to monitor the time that has passed]).
Regarding Claim 6, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 4. Bohdan does not explicitly teach wherein the presenting of the one or more options comprises displaying a GUI with the one or more options.
Bohdan does generally discuss using a graphical user interface (GUI) on user device 101-1 to enable the user to interact and interface with user device 101-1 including OS 214 (Bohdan par. 171). Additionally, user device 101-1 presents the user with the option of setting up for interoperability system mode (Bohdan par. 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a GUI to the user while setting up for interoperability system mode to assist the user with interacting and interfacing with the user device
Regarding Claim 7, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan further teaches wherein prior to the booting of the operating system, the mobile computing device is turned on, and a selection of a mode of operation is made based on determination of the establishment of the first connection (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 310 and par. 95, if the connection establishment is successful then the OS 214 [i.e., mode of operation is using interoperability mode] boots on user device 101-1).
Regarding Claim 8, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan further teaches wherein prior to the booting of the operating system,
the mobile computing device is turned on (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 301 and par. 88, user device 101-1 is switched on),
the device interoperability system initiates switching the user device into interoperability mode (Bohdan par. 89, user accepts the option of setting up for interoperability system mode), the initiating comprising at least one of:
establishing the first connection (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 307 and par. 91, connection 201-1 is established),
switching the stationary computing device from a first power state to a second power state,
sending an indication to the user to switch the stationary computing device from the first power state to the second power state,
turning on the stationary computing device, or
sending an indication to the user to restart the stationary computing device.
Boden does not explicitly teach the mobile computing device initiates switching the stationary computing device into interoperability mode. Boden discloses the device interoperability system may be part of the user device 101-N (see FIG 2E and par. 80-83) and that the device interoperability system can be used to establish a connection and subsequently boot an additional user device 101-N (see par. 85-87, establishment of connection 201-1 and subsequent booting of the appropriate OS depending on whether stand-alone or interoperability modes is used).
Furthermore, in the analogous art of implementing a user profile across multiple devices Cáceres teaches:
Users may initiate an operation by powering up the new PC [i.e., stationary device] so that it boots from the SoulPad [i.e., mobile device]. The PC resumes the Guest OS session (Cáceres pg. 4, col 2, first section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohdan and Cáceres before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bohdan’s system of computing devices with Cáceres’s booting and configuration of the stationary device using the mobile device, the motivation being to allow the user to resume sessions on desktop computers without needing to carry a large device or docking station to maintain their session data and preferences (Cáceres pg. 1, col 1, introduction section).
Regarding Claim 9, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan further discloses wherein prior to the booting of the operating system by the stationary computing device, the mobile computing device enters a device interoperability system host mode (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 301, device 101-1 [i.e., mobile device] is turned on and mode is selected before boot occurs at step 308).
Bohdan does not explicitly disclose the stationary computing device is turned on prior to the booting of the operating system by the stationary computing device. Bohdan generally discusses that connection 201-1 between device interoperability system 200 and user device 101-1 is established before the device 101-1 OS loads (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 308 and par. 53), and the device is already on at this time (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 301). In Bohdan, devices 101-N comprise the devices associated with user (Bohdan par. 38) and any may contain the device interoperability system (Bohdan par. 72). The connection to the stationary computing device 101-N would be established in the pre-boot environment, as is the case disclosed by device 101-1.
Furthermore, Cáceres teaches that when a SoulPad is booting on an EnviroPC, the autoconfiguring Host OS discovers the hardware characteristics and I/O devices of the EnviroPC, and configures itself to the hardware present by installing appropriate driver modules. Auto-configuration is a requirement for this layer since the SoulPad has to boot on an EnviroPC that it may not have seen before (Cáceres pg. 3, col 1, first full par.). In order to boot, a connection between the SoulPad and EnviroPC is established, meaning both devices are on and working in an interoperable mode.
Regarding Claim 10, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 9. Bohdan in view of Cáceres further discloses wherein the entering of the device interoperability system host mode comprises switching from a sleep state to a working state (Cáceres pg. 7, col 2, par. 2, SoulPad will suspend/resume, opposed to shutdown/boot).
Regarding Claim 11, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 9. According to the specification of the instant application par. 184, a soft off state is also known as a full shutdown. Bohdan further discloses wherein the entering of the device interoperability system host mode comprises switching from a soft off state to a working state (Bohdan FIG. 3A, at step 301 the device is switched on [implying being shut down prior to this step]; and step 303 user accepts booting in interoperability mode).
Regarding Claim 12, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan in view of Cáceres further teach:
wherein the mobile computing device is in a device interoperability system host mode (Cáceres pg. 3 col 1, par above Fig. 2, the user can suspend his session [therefore, device is in device interoperability mode, running a session started via SoulPad]);
based on an action performed by the user which is indicative of user intention to shut down the operating system (Cáceres pg. 3 col 1, par above Fig. 2, the user can suspend his session, then shut down the VMM layer and the Host OS),
based on a sent signal (Bohdan par. 181-182, embodiment communications module 213 is able to establish and simultaneously maintain connections using OS 214, which are used to share information for maintaining devices 101-N (also see par. 183)), the mobile computing device performs one of:
switching to a first mode of operation from the device interoperability system host mode (Bohdan par. 180, OS 214 operation on user device 101-1 is first paused [i.e., switching mode of operation], then OS 214 is either booted or resumed on user device 101-2),
remaining in the device interoperability system host mode, or
turning off (Bohdan par. 180, OS 214 must be shut down on user device 101-1, then booted on user device 101-2).
Bohdan in view of Cáceres does not explicitly teach:
a shutdown dialog is presented with one or more options for the user to select;
the stationary computing device sends a signal to the mobile computing device based on the selection of the one or more options presented in the shutdown dialog;
Bohdan generally discloses that a graphical user interface (GUI) is generated on user device 101-1 to enable the user to interact and interface with user device 101-1 including OS 214 (Bohdan par. 171). Performing a shutdown would constitute interacting and interfacing with user device 101-1. Bohdan presents the concepts of either suspending or shutting down the OS (Bohdan par. 180).
Cáceres also notes the user can suspend his session, then shut down the VMM layer and the Host OS, and walk away with his SoulPad (Cáceres pg. 3 col 1, par above Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to use the GUI of Boden to present the shutdown options, then send a signal to complete the option selected by the user.
Regarding Claim 13, Bohdan discloses a method for a mobile computing device (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user device 101-1 [see par. 38, device may be mobile device listed in par. 19]) and a stationary computing device (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user device 101-2 [see par. 38, device may be stationary device listed in par. 19]) associated with a user (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user 100) to interwork (Bohdan FIG. 2A, device interoperability system working in conjunction with the user devices [also see par. 8 and 44]).
The remaining clauses in claim 13 are similar to claim 1 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is similar in scope to claim 8 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the method of claim 14. Bohdan further teaches wherein the performing of the at least one or more processes is based on a determination of a state of the first connection between the mobile computing device and the stationary computing device (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 310 and par. 94, user device tries to establish a connection with device interoperability system 200 [the state of the connection is used to attempt to establish the connection]).
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is similar in scope to claim 6 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohdan in view of Cáceres, further in view of Rajagopal et. al. (US 2021/0124594 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first connection is a Thunderbolt connection, but generally discusses using a wired connection for connections between devices (Bohdan par. 57, at least one of the connections 201-1 to 201-N are direct wireless and at least one of the connections 201-1 to 201-N are direct wired). Additionally, Boden discusses how USB connections can be used for both wired and wireless connections (Bohdan par. 56-57, USB dongle or USB wired connection is used to connect device interoperability system 200 to user device 101).
In the analogous art of managing power states of a device, Rajagopal teaches:
coupling control hub 5532 may couple to various devices using any appropriate communication protocol, including Thunderbolt (Rajagopal par. 89)
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohdan and Rajagopal before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bohdan’s system with Rajagopal’s use of Thunderbolt, the motivation being to use a standard communication protocol for compatibility between devices.
Regarding Claim 16, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the method of claim 14. Bohdan does not explicitly teach wherein the performing of the at least one or more processes is based on a determination of a power state of the stationary computing device, but does discusses communications module 213 managing and optimizing power consumption (see par. 50).
In the analogous art of managing power states of a device, Rajagopal teaches:
changing system behavior based on the power state (Rajagopal Claims 3-4 and par. 18, select processor to boot using based on power and performance goals)
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohdan and Rajagopal before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bohdan’s system with power management for the connections with Rajagopal’s device power management, the motivation being to optimize the power usage of the components in the system (Rajagopal par. 10-11 and 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLE JIAWEI WENTZEL whose telephone number is (703) 756-4762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5:30pm (Mon-Fri).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kim Huynh can be reached on (571) 272-4147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COLE JIAWEI WENTZEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2175
/KIM HUYNH/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2175